One measure of success of the 1.0 docs is from the number of translations.
http://www.w3.org/2005/11/Translations/Lists/OverviewRecs.html#owl-guide-21
I was intrigued to see that owl-ref had the same number of translations
as owl-semantics (French, Hungaraian, Japanese x 2). This may suggest
that, at least from the translators point of view, owl-ref was *not* all
that much more accessible than owl-semantics (or even the test cases
that got (French, Hungarian, Japanese).
Unsurprisingly the short owl-features got the most, but with the
owl-guide not far behind.
Jeremy